Sally,
Please see my comments below.
> We should explicitly state that each active member of the TC is an author
> of the resulting document. Authoring is the preeminant role, an editor is
> to convey the ideas and if necessary enhance the communication through
> wordsmithing, organization and presentation.
Each TC member can certainly be considered a contributing author in that all
of the message and document submissions received by the TC lead to the
ultimate creation of the RM. Within the context of writing the actual RM
specification, editors are authors of that document. They do not create the
content of the specification, but do physically write the specification
document. As per your request, we can add a statement indicating that all
active TC members are considered authors. (However, I believe that the OASIS
template identifies these members as "contributors".)
> I am concerned that the tact we are taking will lead to more volume in
> the document than is needed.
This is why the role of the custodian is being proposed. It will be that
individual's responsibility to ensure that the RM specification is as lean
and concise as required.
> I concur with the suggestion I believe was made by Frank McCabe to wait
> until we get to know each other before we decide on an editorial team (and
> I would add editorial approach).
I believe Frank's suggestion was that we wait to decide which of the editors
will assume the custodian role. The editing team has already been
determined.
> I do take issue with your proposal "...each assigned the responsibility of
> maintaining a distinct and meaningful portion of the reference model".
> This presupposes what the end product is, and determining what is the
> reference model is what we are trying to accomplish.
This idea came up during the first conference call. It was based on the
notion that we define a high-level, preliminary outline and that individual
editors would assume responsibility for documenting individual parts of this
outline. If we use this approach it would be with the understanding that the
document will evolve and that its structure will likely change. How content
is divided up and maintained by the editing team will likely be decided
amongst the editors (unless the TC is interested in these details).
> While I do not feel it is necessary that 'my words' be used I am
> interested in insuring that ideas and concepts are portrayed in the manner
> the author intended. It would appear that virtually every contributor will
> be an editor.
When we discuss the editor role it is within the context of the role
description provided by OASIS. The role of (OASIS) editors is to express the
vision of the TC as a whole. They are responsible for monitoring TC
contributions, maintaining a list of outstanding issues and subsequent
resolutions, and then formally documenting and publishing versions of the
specification to communicate this vision. It is fully expected that TC
members will review every published version of the RM and provide the
editors with revision requests.
Thanks for the comments. If you have any further change requests, let me
know.
Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: Sally St. Amand
To: Thomas Erl ; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Revised SOA-RM Editor Role Descriptions Document
Thomas
We should explicitly state that each active member of the TC is an author of
the resulting document. Authoring is the preeminant role, an editor is to
convey the ideas and if necessary enhance the communication through
wordsmithing, organization and presentation.
I am concerned that the tact we are taking will lead to more volume in the
document than is needed. Personally I believe that we could probably get
away with one picture and some explainatory text. I also know that it is
harder to write a short document than a long one especially when trying to
communicate new ideas.
I concur with the suggestion I believe was made by Frank McCabe to wait
until we get to know each other before we decide on an editorial team (and I
would add editorial approach).
I do take issue with your proposal ".. each assigned the responsibility
of maintaining a distinct and meaningful portion of the reference model".
This presupposes what the end product is, and determining what is the
reference model is what we are trying to accomplish.
While I do not feel it is necessary that 'my words' be used I am interested
in insuring that ideas and concepts are portrayed in the manner the author
intended. It would appear that virtually every contributor will be an
editor. Following the approach we are on I too want to be an editor.
Sally
Thomas Erl <terl@serviceorientation.org> wrote:
I have uploaded a revised version of the "Proposed Role Descriptions for
SOA-RM Editors" document that takes into account feedback received since it
was originally published.
For those of you interested, here is a summary of the changes:
- There have been suggestions that the role of the individual who assumes
responsibility for assembling a master document from the editor
contributions be labeled as "Chief Editor" or "Lead Editor". There was a
subsequent objection to the use of any terminology that would imply a
hierarchy or authority on the part of this role. The term "Custodian" has
been suggested, so I changed the term to "Editor & Custodian".
- There was a further objection to the notion that the Editor & Custodian be
in any way distinguished from the other editors. It is therefore being
proposed that all editors be listed (in alphabetical order by last name) as
equal contributors on the SOA-RM specification. This is in line with our
goal of balancing the workload across all members of the team.
Please let me know if there are any further objections or change requests.
Thomas